I indexed 474,791 wallets that bought a flagged scam token. 1 in 3 came back and bought another.

Follow-up to the thread two weeks ago where I posted a high scam rate on new Ethereum tokens and several of you pushed back on the methodology. That pushback was right, and this is the part I could not answer then.

I joined 5.9M resolved swap transactions against contracts scoring 70+ on my risk index. That gives 474,791 distinct wallets that bought at least one flagged token. Distribution of how many different flagged tokens each wallet bought:

1 token 309,256 65.1% 2 to 4 115,885 24.4% 5 to 10 32,635 6.9% 11 to 50 14,699 3.1% 51 to 200 1,952 0.4% 200+ 364 0.1% 

34.9% bought more than one. Median victim bought exactly 1, p90 is 5.

Before anyone asks about bots, because that was the main critique last time: the 2,316 wallets above 50 tokens (0.5% of the total) account for 23.6% of every scam-token purchase in the set. Those are trading bots, not people. I am reporting them separately instead of folding them into a bigger headline. And the repeat finding survives the sceptical cut: throw away every wallet above 10 tokens as possible automation and 31.3% still got hit more than once.

Two things that explain the repeats, both measurable:

**Template reuse.** 44.6% of flagged contracts share a bytecode template with another flagged contract. One single template accounts for 8,401 flagged tokens, which is 13.5% of every scam in the set. They do not look exotic, they look like ordinary new tokens, because most of them are copies of each other.

**Late rugs.** I froze a cohort of 25,931 tokens and re-scored them at deploy and again at day 30 with a fixed threshold. 48.8% scored as scams on day 0, 90.6% by day 30. 41.9% flipped from clean to flagged and not one flipped back. Checking a contract on launch day misses most of the danger, which is the thing I had wrong for months.

Limits, stated up front: "flagged" is my detector, not a court ruling. Precision sits around 0.3 to 0.4, so it over-flags on purpose. Recall against a behavioural label (real retail money in, buyers not recovering their WETH) is about 0.97, so it rarely misses an actual rug once real money is involved, but that is on a small sample.

Happy to run other cuts on the data if someone wants a specific one, or to go into the three drain mechanisms (honeypot, liquidity removal, late rug) if that is useful.